Barb's New CEO on Streamers, Google and the Future of JICs

Speaker 0 · 0:00

Hello. Welcome to the Media Unfiltered podcast. We have a very special guest today as it's her first interview as the new CEO of Barb. Of course, referring to Caroline Davy, who will be joined by Luca Viani, who's the head of partnerships and comms for Barb. It's a wide ranging interview covering the need to JIX to evolve quickly. We also discuss what that evolution entails, how to work with streamers, and the exciting possibility of data sharing. And of course, we cover the very tricky topic of how to manage Google and YouTube. It's clear there's huge pressure from the industry to work together, but whether that happens remains to be seen. Origin was also debated with both speakers suggesting future collaboration is on the table which is surprising given little of that occurred in the past. We discussed whether YouTube is TV and whether Orangin indeed failed and focused a lot also on the new economic reality of JIX and what they need to do in order to remain relevant and well funded in the future. Enjoy the interview. Caroline, Luca, welcome. Thank you very much for doing this. Are you both well?

Speaker 2 · 1:11

All good. Thank you. Yeah. All good. Thanks, Justin.

Speaker 0 · 1:15

So Caroline, I guess easy first question. You're in the hot seat after Justin has occupied position for nearly fourteen years, almost part of the furniture. How's the start been for you? And also follow on from that and let us know how your leadership will differ to his.

Speaker 1 · 1:33

Well, I still have pinch me moments, but predominantly, I see this as a really exciting challenge, and I'm really energized at the thought of all that's to come. I think that things were already changing the last few years of Justin leadership. I think, as you say, he's been here fourteen years. He's always been seen as the statesman for Barb. But now it's far more about Barb as a team and one that I'm really looking forward to leading. I think the other thing that's gonna feel really different is the rate of change. We've got a really ambitious plan over the next few years and one that's only gonna happen if we work really focused, agile, and fast paced. And so I think that's gonna feel very different.

Speaker 0 · 2:10

Yeah. Well, let's let's talk about that plan because I guess if you if you look at the landscape, GICS globally are under pressure as linear dollars become squeezed, and then we obviously have the explosion of devices and consumption happening in all sorts of places. So lots of jigs are adapting, moving to measure linear like digital. You're moving to second by second. Do you feel that's enough for for Barb and JGIX to stay relevant, or do you see or do you foresee that, Barb rolling out more services to become, I guess, more relevant in your market?

Speaker 1 · 2:46

I mean, fundamentally, Barb exists to provide trusted independent measurement of what people watch. And I think if we do that in a fully comprehensive and consistent manner, then we're always gonna be relevant. What we're doing over the next few years and what we're gonna deliver goes a long way to giving the industry what it's asking for. I think there's always gonna be more to do as the industry evolves. So, yes, I'm sure we will roll out more services. One interesting area for future is, data packs. We're looking forward to doing one on our own, and we're looking we're talking about cross stick, multi MMM data packs. So, yeah, I think more will come. And, yeah, as I say, the industry is always changing. So, yeah, I think we will be doing more.

Speaker 0 · 3:26

So do you do you think that just pure audience measurement is just not enough for JIX today? You need to go into MMMs,

Speaker 1 · 3:33

you know, look into outcomes and maybe other solutions. Is that is that a really important roadmap for you? I don't think it's as important as providing comprehensive measurement and making sure we do that in a consistent way that really gives the industry what it needs. But I think, you know, linking measurement to outcomes is, well, it's a hot topic at the moment. I'd like to see why it's relevant. So I don't think it's I think it's, as I say, it's about listening to what the industry needs and adapting in that way.

Speaker 0 · 4:00

Yeah. So, every broadcaster, around the world is looking at outcomes. We've obviously got a solution that's based in The UK with Lantern. Do you feel as though because you guys are the sort of trusted, truth set of data that, the outcomes component should belong within the sort of Barb housed within the Barb home? Do you think it should be should belong there, or should it be something that the sort of the broadcaster sales teams, own and operate?

Speaker 1 · 4:26

I think it's starting where it needed to start. I think progress is happening quickly, so I think that's good. We are staying in touch with Lanturn. We have regular conversations. You know, will it move at some point? I don't know. But I think for us to just stay connected and keep talking is a good thing. So I think it's where it needs to be right now.

Speaker 0 · 4:44

Okay. Wonderful. So so I guess the the the the bottom line for all this development and and additional services, who pays for it. Right? Traditionally, Barb's income largely comes from the broadcasters, but viewing growth is happening on, platforms and streamers, and measuring it just requires sort of more cost. So does the funding model need to change? You know, you've got a situation where streamers are buying the data, but not really using it as a currency. And I guess I guess question there is will that change? How how are they how are they looking to operate or how are you looking to operate with the streamers and, how are they looking to use your data as well when they go to market?

Speaker 1 · 5:26

I think you asked a few questions. I'll I'm just gonna I did. I'm gonna talk a little bit about the the the financial side, and then actually Luca can talk about the streaming side. Sure. So, I mean, we're really aware that that budgets are tight. I mean, predominantly, we are funded by the broadcasters, absolutely. But unless you yourself said, it's not just the broadcasters. We have a we have the agencies via the APA. We have advertisers. We have streamers buying our our, data directly. So I think it really is the whole industry that supports BART. But I think, you know, you talked about more money. Really, really conscious in doing this new developments that we we don't think we've got some end never ending budget. You know, we are doing everything to keep within existing budgets. And where we can, looking to, so for example, moving to second level, we're adopting a new type of technology. But in doing that, we're actually then thinking we don't need another type. So actually that becomes cost cost neutral and it's really important and and that's how we're approaching all of these developments. We're not thinking we've got an endless part. So we're looking at how can we tighten and streamline, to make sure we we continue, developing. But I'll I'll let Luca Luca answer about the treatments. Yeah. Sure. I think on the on on the, currency point that you the question that you asked, Justin,

Speaker 2 · 6:39

I think it's it's worth recognizing that it isn't really up to Barb to to decide how the companies that own the services that we we measure, should operate. So in in other words, we don't really set the currency or decide what the currency should be. I mean, we we're obviously aware though that there is an expectation that our reporting will provide the basis for for trading amongst other, purposes. And and looking at the bit, of the barbed data set that is currently considered currency. I mean, right now, there's only the the linear part. We only cover the the linear. So going back to what Caroline said earlier, I think, you know, for for for our report to become more comprehensive, we we need to deliver consistent reporting across what people watch, and that means content and ads on any device, whether it's part of a a schedule or on demand. And once we've delivered that, then all parts of the industry, including the streamers, potentially can decide how to to to use the data. And, a move towards reporting based on second level granularity, why in itself doesn't solve the problem, it definitely goes into that direction.

Speaker 0 · 7:52

Okay. And then just to build on that, though, so Sabaab wants to, obviously, blend panel data with device and streamer first party data. Right? So I guess the question there, Luca, is will streamers work with you and hand over data? And if so, on on what terms?

Speaker 2 · 8:06

I mean, yes. That that's the plan. I think on on the on the broader subject of, device based data, that's something to a certain extent we've already been doing for for a while. I mean, what what we're planning to do now is to go beyond and and doing it, on a on a on a bigger scale. And so, yes, we are already working some of the streaming, services on on proof of concepts and try to sort of lay the foundation for for for integration. And, you said on what terms we're doing that. I mean, we we're doing that in in joint industry terms. I think we we're conscious that every company has its own setup. So what we're trying to get to is to ensure that, all streaming services that we work with can provide comparable and equitable data in a sort of transparent, manner. So we're not necessarily pushing A universal specification, but we're definitely setting a sort of a dataset acceptance framework that everyone can sign up to. So it's very much joined industry terms. And I don't think we, definitely not bending the rules for them. What we're doing, we're setting the rules for a new era, and we're doing that very much with, you know, for the industry with the industry, and so our underwriters are very much involved in that process.

Speaker 0 · 9:28

Yeah. And and and it's essential. Right? You you need their lean in, right, to in in order to to get the data and the granularity that you need to achieve for the for the advertisers. But will that will they do it? It's the question. You're you're you're having to, amend the rules so everyone's happy, which I imagine is threading a needle, a very challenging needle. Will you get there? Is the question, Luca.

Speaker 2 · 9:53

I think it's it's it's it's, you know, it's part of work to to adapt to to to the market, to to a very fragmented market. Yeah. We we obviously we obviously think we will get there. Yes. We're very optimistic about it. But, ultimately, in terms of of how these companies will be using the data, that's not really up to us to to say or or decide.

Speaker 0 · 10:15

Okay. Caroline, and then just earlier that we were talking about the business models. Is it absent from your position when you look at viewership and the the impact and roles of the the streamers coming into the market? Is it absolutely essential when you look at your sort of three to five year plan that you need them leaning in and part of part of Barb and and contributing financially for for you guys to have a successful future?

Speaker 1 · 10:39

I mean, I they are part of the industry, so absolutely, I think they need to be be in Barb. We're about measuring what people watch and, you know, we have good working relationships with all of them. So, yeah, I see them very much as part of the future future for for Boris. Yes.

Speaker 0 · 10:53

Okay. So who would you describe as as Barb's real customer? Do you, is it is it is it the advertisers, the agencies, or is it the underwriters? Who do you who do you view as your sort of real customer?

Speaker 1 · 11:05

I'm gonna answer this one. I mean, ultimately yeah. I mean, ultimately, you know, I think we we have a number of customers. I don't think there is just one. I mean, we know buying and selling of TV advertising is a key purpose. Absolutely. But our data supports the production of TV contents. It's used to ensure that TV industry operates in the interest of the wider society. We've got BBC, obviously, is a is a huge, huge part of Barb. And also, you know, people like Ofcom and and and another gap got, various government departments uses our data. So I think we can narrow it down just to advertising, but but, you know and I think they all do want the same thing. They want comprehensive measurement of what people watch, across content and ads. So, yeah, Luke, I don't know if you've got anything to add to that. Sorry. I just

Speaker 2 · 11:51

That's alright. No. No. No. I'm I'm in, obviously, completely, agree on that. Advertising is, one, you know, supporting the the, buy side and sell side is is a big part of of what we're doing and what Barb is about, but it's it's obviously not the the only purpose as as Caroline said. So we we're looking at the old industry or part of the industry. Probably worth reminding everyone that BBC is a is a key supporter of Barb, and, and it does that from a sort of its unique position in The UK market of not carrying, advertising. So I think that that there is more than just supporting advertising, but we we do recognize that it's really important. And so we we do, speak to advertisers. I mean, some of them are directly. All of others, do it via their agency, but, there there's definitely, a dialogue going on there.

Speaker 0 · 12:45

Yeah. Just just very quickly, just yes, no. Do you do you work more and more directly with advertisers today than you did in the past?

Speaker 2 · 12:55

A little bit more, but I don't think it It has sudden it has changed drastically, I would say.

Speaker 0 · 13:01

Yeah. It's it's interesting. We we focus a lot on the, advertising side of things with with Barb, but, actually, there's an there's another role that you guys play, a major role to see what content, that English people and British people are consuming, what works, what doesn't work, and that's an essential component of what you guys do for helping funding new, new content and and all the rest of it and distribution platforms for BBC and for others. And I think we we do forget that. So let's talk a little bit about about Origin. Obviously, it was in the news. They've just, part of their service has been, acquired by Kantar. Off the top, do you guys believe that Origin fundamentally failed?

Speaker 1 · 13:44

I think the journey isn't over for Origin, so I don't think you can say it's failed. From our perspective, we're still talking with Origin around how they can surface barbed data into the ecosystem. You know, I can see the need for cross media measurement, and we wanna support that. So I don't think I don't think their story's over. I think they still got a way to go. So yeah. You think they got a way to go?

Speaker 0 · 14:08

Luca, was it for you for you guys, was it a bit of an unwelcome distraction? I mean, for for we've had best part of six years, and sort of another provider coming in providing a different dataset, different, obviously, figures to what you guys present to the market. Was that an unwelcome distraction?

Speaker 2 · 14:25

I I I wouldn't say it was an unwelcome distraction, for us. I mean, there's there has been, I think, genuine intention to find a way to collaborate with Origin, you know, in in the interest of our common, stakeholders. I think that spirit is is still there. So as as it Colin said, we just wait and see what, what happens as, they go through this, you know, get ready for this next chapter for for them. It it is definitely, I think, for the industry, it's probably not been ideal, but, you know, we're we're still very keen to find a way and collaborate with them. K. Why why wasn't it ideal? Well, I I think, as as you say, that the at at the end of the day, there were, two sets of numbers, which also means, a lot more resources were invested in in in finding a solution to a problem that, maybe we can try and solve together. But I think, I don't think we we're interested in necessarily, you know, going through what might have gone wrong or might have gone differently in the last six years. We're very much looking forward to how things could work in the future.

Speaker 0 · 15:39

Well, one of the things that the the obvious thing is that they they didn't work with you originally, and now you're looking perhaps they will work with you. You've got Kantar who owns, obviously, part of the, owns the panel, and they obviously are a major supplier to you guys now. So what what's what's gonna be different, you know, for this solution? Because it it's clear as day, like, the the financials aren't there to have two sets of, panels within one market. Let's be obvious. So the the the solution is to work together. So what what is different today do you think to make that happen to actually have you guys, work collaboratively than it was in the past?

Speaker 1 · 16:16

I think it's really I think it's a little bit early to tell because it is so completely new, you know, in terms of what it's like. I'm gonna have to say it's 55 blue just to just to get that out there. Sorry. No. No. No. Just That's my bad. That's my I think they probably appreciate me saying that. So, yeah, I it's a it's a new operating model. I've not worked with with something like this before, so I I think it's really early days. But, yeah, as Lucas said, you know, we're a new leader to them. It's a new era, so we're going in with that approach, and and we will take each step as it comes. Okay. Fresh approach. Have they reached out to you? Have you had, initial chats yet? We have. We have had some initial chat. Yeah. Yep. I mean, it's it's they haven't they haven't signed the deal yet. So I think it was just literally, you know, they took the you know, they told us what was going on in as much as they could. And I think they're working now. And I'm sure once the deal is signed, we will start talking to them a lot more directly. So yeah.

Speaker 0 · 17:10

Okay. So cross media measurement in The UK is not dead. Is that your position on this?

Speaker 1 · 17:16

Yeah. It's not dead.

Speaker 0 · 17:17

Okay. So building on that, let's have a look at your relationship with Google. You obviously had the cease and desist stuff that occurred last year. It was great data that you brought out. Right? Some some granular insights to what's happening on YouTube. I think the entire industry would love independent verified data that's similar to what you get from TV providers on YouTube. But it appears over the last fifteen years, I have not seen any evidence of this that Google just are resisting all attempts to have third party verification of what occurs on YouTube. But saying that, you're trying to build a closer relationship with Google. What do you get out of it, and what does Google get if you do actually bring those two forces together?

Speaker 1 · 18:03

I I think it's what the I think it's, as you say, it's what the industry gets out of it rather than what, you know, each of us individually. So, you know, people do want to know what people are watching, on YouTube, and they would like to have it in an independent, transparent manner. So I I realized a level of skepticism because it has been a long time and there's been a lot going on. But again, I I do look at this as as, you know, we started conversations, with a fresh approach with Google. We're taking a very practical approach, which we haven't done before with looking at how we operate and how we we really get into the detail of what it could and couldn't work. So, like, I don't have a crystal ball. I don't know the outcome, but I I do take each step with optimism. I have a very can do attitude, very solution driven. So, look, I'm gonna go on this journey and do the best we can, and, you know, we can come back and update you as we go along it. But, yeah, I I really just wanna go with how do we make this work and and take it from there.

Speaker 0 · 19:05

Well, yeah. Okay. So I don't have a crystal ball, but I do have history, as an indicator. They've never worked with the jig or anyone to be fully transparent and work like the broadcasters. So, again, why do you think they're different? Like, look at the spend. They just simply don't need it. So do you, like if if you look at other markets around the world, they're they're setting the stall, and they're saying, we won't have conversations with you unless you just agree. Okay. Let's just not bother. But you're taking a bit of a different approach. So, again, it's a similar question. Why do you think it'll be any different? I don't I don't I mean, I look. I'm not in the other countries, but I I see them talking in other markets. I know for a fact they're talking in France.

Speaker 1 · 19:42

Medium entry, I think I hear that's going pretty well. You know, I I yeah. I mean, I'm just gonna stay very focused on what's in front of me. And, I do hear and history does you know, history is important. I'm a history student, and I think it's important to look back from history. But I also think, you know, you can use it and move forward as well. So yeah.

Speaker 0 · 20:04

It's a shame we don't have Ian here for a proper history lesson. He loves a history analogy. I, I am not as I'm not as educated as Ian, so I can't I can't give you one. I can't give you a history analogy that supports this. But, Luca, why don't you, answer about this this question? Like, does in your view again, look at the success of YouTube. Does it need to be transparent? Does it need Barb? I I think that's what the industry app is asking. And I know what the industry is asking for. You guys have been good at PR. You guys have said that twice now, but I know it's what the industry wants. But what the the industry never gets what it wants. The at the moment, the industry is buying in more black boxes boxes than they ever have done before. Right? And no one wants that, but we're doing it anyway because because otherwise, you wouldn't be able to buy this media. So like I said Sure. Do do do do Google need it is the question.

Speaker 2 · 20:55

Well, I guess that's a question for Google, really. I'm I'm not I'm not deflecting the question, and and I can see why it will make for a great headline, but, I'm I'm not gonna go there, Justin. Sorry.

Speaker 0 · 21:08

Okay. But okay. Okay. Here's a question then. It's just a simple one. Simple yes, no. You both get chances. Luca, I'll stick with you. Is YouTube TV?

Speaker 2 · 21:17

Again, I think that will make a great headline as well. I can see why you're asking it. But I I think from our perspective, you know, there is a platform that now as a you know, according to our own data, its share reviewing is is is more than 15%. And Yeah. More than half of that is happening on the TV set. So if we have an ambition to measure what people watch, we should measure it, alongside everything else we're measuring. And then and then maybe the the industry and the people that use our data can answer that question based on independent and transparent reporting.

Speaker 0 · 21:52

Fair enough. Caroline, you know, your your your own trade body, you know, your underwriters of the broadcasters, and your trade body is Thinkbox. They are they are going out to the market saying, it is not TV based on the, the fact that TV is independently verified, it's it's, government regulated, etcetera. Lots of other reasons as well, human verified ads. Why is it so difficult to sit there and say, do you have to be Switzerland in this in this in this debate? Like, what what do you what do you believe? Is is YouTube TV or is it not?

Speaker 1 · 22:21

Look. Again, I find this a fascinating debate. I mean, I I know it is. I've only been in the I do too. I've been in the industry four or five years, and one of the biggest things I thought when I came in is these definitions of how people watch TV and video programs play such an important part in the industry. So important. And that definitions I've never heard of before about something I, as a layman, do every day. I sit and watch content and ads. So, I mean, I just don't when I hear the arguments of, you know, I think I am gonna play Switzerland, and that it's not a question that, I don't think that's a bad place to be. When you hear people arguing in one sense about their definition of TV and does it fit that definition of TV, then and then you go another, but the other definition of TV is somebody literally sitting watching it at a big screen in their room, then both sides are correct. You know, I think it's it's which definition do you want to take. So yeah. My priority priority is to get it measured, and I know I know it's an interesting debate, and I know, you know, it's a hot topic, but, you know, we're really focused at the moment on on measuring and giving people the data that they want.

Speaker 0 · 23:27

Okay. Fair enough. I've pushed you enough on that, and, I appreciate I appreciate you the fact that you're willing to take them. So let's just talk about we we mentioned costs and the business models around it, and this is a bit of a nerdy technical question around sort of the physical panels and meters and stuff like that. They're expensive to run. There's no doubt. I'm we, you know, just a bit of education for everyone listening. You need panels to calibrate. Audiences, please understand that. If you're from the digital world, you can't just rely on ad ad server data. You need humans. But, cost pressures occur are occurring around the world with JIX. Do you see panels, being replaced by sort of more digital acts assets and AI in order to cost save? Is that is that the sort of three to five year plan?

Speaker 2 · 24:10

Not necessarily, I would say. I mean, it it it might sound counterintuitive, but the the more, device based data you're trying to integrate, the the more important the panel, becomes Right. To to, yeah, to basically give you, all the information around real behavior, demographics, and, that that you can't get from first party data, alone. So, we yeah. We we need to be mindful of of of cost, but we definitely would not want to compromise, quality, and in any way put a risk the robustness of of our measurement.

Speaker 0 · 24:48

Yeah. Is is there just on the again, a nerdy point, and I think it's something that people need to understand, is the device data that you get, the digital data side, is it just is it actually quite hard to to to use, and to integrate within your sort of, like, big, big data sort of side of your business?

Speaker 2 · 25:07

Yeah. Very quickly, and then I don't know if Caroline wants to to add anything. I mean, neither of us is a data scientist, but I think that the the the main challenge is not necessarily about the data itself. I think the main challenge is to to understand what what what the data is. And, you know, at at the end of the day, we expect differences between first party data and panel data. Otherwise, if they were exactly the same, there wouldn't be a need to, to bring them together. I think the key is trying to reconcile those differences and understanding what's driving them, what is acceptable, what isn't, what's in scope, what isn't. And then once you have the full picture,

Speaker 1 · 25:45

you know, integrating it is not that difficult. I mean, I'm I'm I'm sure our data science team I was gonna say, we I mean, we've got an amazing we've got an amazing data science team. You do. One of the best things we've done in the last three or four years. And with them on hand, I feel it very, very confident. And I and I'm sure they come and do a whole a whole session with you, Justin, if you want because, it's their favorite topic.

Speaker 0 · 26:07

Yeah. I've done it before, actually, and they they they, yeah. They they, you know, you you you talk about long sessions, talking about when a minute starts and when time starts, and I'm like, holy shit. The the level of, attention paid to, you know, every second of time that goes towards counting is is outstanding. And that that that scrutiny and that level is what we need in this industry more and more. But Yeah. You know, sadly, and this builds on to my final question, you know, the jigs, the rigor that goes in. I understand that because I've seen behind the scenes, but I don't think a lot of the industry sort of appreciate it. But what I feel today around jigs is that they they need to be strengthened and stronger than ever before. Because if you think about the media, industry, it's it's unlimited ad impressions. Right? What differentiates one from another is trust, transparency. It's a major USP. But when you look at it, you've seen Tony Reagan slide from last year. Less and less money is going through joint industry committees. So I guess the final question is, what does the future of Jigs look like? You've got these two major challenges. You've got huge impressions out there available, operating within black boxes. Yet trust and transparency, I think, is ever more important. However, the funding and spend going through joint industry committees is is is going down. So what does the what does the next three to five years look like for for Jix and for Barb?

Speaker 1 · 27:30

Well, for Barb, I mean, we have we have a clear roadmap in the next couple of years to, really deliver the complete picture in a way that we don't today. So, you know, as we start, you know, robust measurement in putting panel and first party data, having aligned, linear and and odd advertising, You know, that is gonna go a really long way to, I think, changing that picture. And I think everyone got shocked when we saw that graph, and that's really sort of one of the things that's spurring us on to deliver, so that the JIX do remain relevant and strong, and I agree with you. I think the strength is very much around robust, resilient, solid, independent, trusted data, and I think we can do that with more and more data, then I think we seal our future and we cement our our our our what we're here. I think that we have to be collaborative and adapt to work in an agile manner at pace. I think we continue to do that, and we do that more than we maybe have done it in the past, then I think the future's positive, but we've got to keep that agile, you know, moving and delivering, how how measurement and the industry is is is moving today.

Speaker 0 · 28:39

And and Luca, just to just to wrap up on that point, just, not just about Barb there. Caroline expressed there the what Barb needs to do in order to, you know, avoid that future that Tony Regan pointed out of that graph, which I'll which I'll, amend I'll put I'll put on this, this podcast and this article. But what does the future of JIX look like for you, do you think with that with that background?

Speaker 2 · 29:03

Yeah. I I I think Caroline, summed up summed it up pretty well. I think the the the the market and the industry in general is is is moving quite fast. So I think JIX in in in whatever sector just needs to stay on top of those changes and, and, deliver data that is is usable and that covers, as much as the market as possible.

Speaker 0 · 29:26

So you're optimistic that they've got a strong future for the next ten years?

Speaker 2 · 29:31

I'm optimistic. Otherwise, I'm sort of I wouldn't work a bomb, I guess.

Speaker 0 · 29:36

Well, fair enough. Well, you two have been a great sport as great insight. Caroline, obviously, I wish you all the best of luck in your in your new position. Thank you very much for doing this. Luca, thank you very much as well for contributing. Once again, listeners, this is definitely not investment investment advice, and thank you very much for listening.